How about a pertenint question?

[Prairie_Scouter]

As Trevorum said, since sexuality has no place in Scouting, whether the leaders are gay or not is irrelevent. So, I'd go with the trained leaders.

 

As an aside, I think that there's this perception that gay leaders would all be running around in drag or something. I wouldn't want to be in a troop with gay leaders openly expressing their sexuality anymore than I'd want to be in a troop with hetero leaders who stand around fondling each other during meetings. Neither provides an appropriate role model image for the Scouts.

[DugNevius]

I would much rather have untrained homosexual leaders running a troop then to have bigots who discriminate and promote intolerance against minorities, other religions and homosexuals.

[Eagledad]

>> I would much rather have untrained homosexual leaders running a troop then to have bigots who discriminate and promote intolerance against minorities, other religions and homosexuals.

[fotoscout]

Bob,

 

No particular reason, just current events that came to mind as I was typing.

 

But you are right.... for both groups the thought could be projected back in time to the late 1700's or even much earlier than that.

 

The same information age that brought us new truths about priests and presidents, also brought us new truths about gays. In both cases our old beliefs were broken and a new understanding emerged.(This message has been edited by fotoscout)

[Bob White]

"The same information age that brought us new truths about priest and presidents, also brought us new truths about gays."

 

What do you say those truths are? All priests are bad, but homosexual Scout Leaders are good? You shouldn't look up to the office of President of the United States but you should look up to a gay scoutmaster? What exactly are you saying?

[DugNevius]

Im not really sure why you so offended. You are upset because im against discrimination and bigotry? is bigotry a "bad" word? I didnt point out anyone in specific at all, simply stated id be more comfortable with homosexuals who had not attended training then those who would be prejeduced against homosexuals as a whole.

[Eamonn]

Hi Bob,

Are the leaders untrained because they are new? Will they in time take the training?

How do we know that all the homosexual scout leaders are homosexual? I have problems with the word avowed!!

Back home the District Commissioner is very much the "Top man". We had Ernie as our District Commissioner, he held the position for all the time I was in Scouting in the UK. (About 20 years) Ernie was never married and did at times have nephews living with him. He was very active in the Masonic Lodge. He was a wealthy man and was generous and an all round nice fellow.

I never ever in my wildest dreams thought about Ernie being anything but Ernie. Ernie passed away some years back.

I was discussing the differences between Scouting UK and the BSA with a very close friend, who is a very high ranking policeman in the Metropolitan Police. He informed me that Ernie had been homosexual. It seems that one of Ernie's "Nephews" had gone missing and Ernie had asked my friend to help find him.

Ernie and I were never really close. I admired him and respected him. I know that he did a lot for the District and for Scouting.

I don't know if any of the Leaders in the District that I serve are homosexual. I never asked. There could well be a couple that have never admitted it openly.

I see no reason why they are unable to carry on if they are happy to do so.

They would not be setting a bad example to the youth if they never come out.

Eamonn.

[fotoscout]

Bob I'll spell it out for you:

 

Old Truths:

Presidents and Priests - fine upstanding pillars of the community

Gays - Sexual deviants who pray on young boys in the community.

 

New Truths:

Presidents and Priests - Sexual deviants, some of whom pray on young boys in the community

Gays - wired differently, most often fine upstanding pillars of the community. No threat to the youth of the communty.

 

By my own admission there is some wiggle room here, and I do take some literary license. But it's clear that there is no longer any real reason to stereotype either of these groups as a more preferential role model.

 

 

 

[Bob White]

Just so we are straight here Presidents and priests are the only ones who have ever done anything wrong. Oh and the Scouting professionals.

 

But volunteers have never run off with kids money, abused children, had affairs, or teachers, teachers have never done any thing wrong with their students, and athletes, atheletes are still our heroes because they have never done anything worng.

 

But ALL priests and all presidents are guilty. You know whats funny. I haven't answered the question and you "think" I am a bigot. You answered it and proved you are.

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[packsaddle]

fotoscout, 1000 miles is a fairly wide radius, just a note.

I like Acco40's logic and Trevorum also made a good observation. I have frequently seen troops led by untrained heterosexuals (at least I assume they weren't gay, not all of them...I think...h'mmm, I could be wrong). These troops are usually new, fold quickly, and often the boys who are aware of the other troops transfer to those other troops. I think this most often happens with new troops because without training, a troop has little chance of surviving. The program isn't delivered and the boys suffer the consequences.

 

As Trevorum pointed out, sexuality being irrelevant to the program...I'd take the trained leaders over untrained ones any time.

 

So now, as Hunt mentioned, what is the correct answer?

[evmori]

foto,

No need to be sorry! There are priests and presidents and BSA officials and rock stars that are excellent role models. There are priests and presidents and BSA officials and rock stars that are terrible role models. And it is that way with any occupation. But homosexuality isn't an occupation. It's a lifestyle. And as a lifestyle I feel it is morally bankrupt.

 

And since you started the topic, Bob, how would you answer you own question? I, too, am curious!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

Ed, I cant tell you how much I enjoy your posts and repartee. I have noticed that you used to post a lot on the forum at meritbadge.net and the Scouting.Com Forum and you havent been to either for awhile, I have seen some topics discussed there that I know you would be just the person to address. As always, yours in scouting

[Trevorum]

Evmori offers us the nifty sound byte that homosexuality is a "lifestyle", implying that this biology is somehow chosen. (sigh) This may be a popular opinion, but it has no scientific basis. Homosexuality is no more a lifestyle than is being born female, or being born Asian, or being born hemophiliac, or being born albino. All of these chromosomal and hormonal conditions affect behavior, but we rarely hear about the "Albino lifestyle.

 

For reasons I have never fully understood, western culture has evolved an antagonism to homosexuality. In other times and places, homosexuality has been accepted matter-of-factly as an element of society and people go on with their lives without fear and loathing.

[acco40]

Without naming names, some of the goofball responses I read here don't upset me as I have come to expect very little from some forum posters on particular topics. However, Eamonn, I was disappointed in your response and it troubles me because I don't understand it and believe it to be very prevalent.

 

Your earlier post describes a man, Ernie, who in your own words was the "Top man" for 20 years, was very active in the Masonic Lodge, was generous and an all around nice fellow, someone you admired and respected, and you knew he did a lot for the District and for Scouting. But then you state that, "They would not be setting a bad example to the youth if they never come out." Now, I don't advicate wearing one's sexuality on one's sleeve but why wouldn't Ernie still be setting a good example if he simply lived his life openly, like myself and millions of other heterosexual couples do?

[Prairie_Scouter]

Bob, I read foto's comments, and then read your response, and then read his comment again, because you seem to have read something completely different.

 

Foto was clearly speaking in very broad strokes, and this was clearly indicated by the comments at the end of his post. The point, I think, was not about what percentage of those groups might be "bad" or whether as a group they are "dangerous", only that you can't universally categorize people, as BSA has done with gays by stereotyping them as bad role models. You yourself indicated the problem with making broad statements about any group with your sarcastic remarks about teachers, athletes, etc. If we all agree that making generalizing statements about any group is not the route to take, then why would we want to do exactly that to gays?